Madeleine Moon: I thank the Minister for that response. Will he encourage the First Minister to tie in the generous capital allocation mentioned in his response with consequent revenue resources, to enable those high-performing trusts such as Bro Morgannwg NHS trust in my constituency to forge ahead with the exciting "Designed for Life" agenda in Wales?

Nick Ainger: That is not the case, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has said that, bearing in mind that, as I understand it, he is a supporter of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who yesterday endorsed the devolution settlement and said that he might even consider taking it further. However, he refers to Withybush hospital, and I am well aware, as I am also a relatively local Member to that hospital, and a considerable number of my constituents use it, of the real problems there. I am aware that clinicians are concerned about the hospital's future. Following discussions with the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no plans whatever to downgrade Withybush hospital. The generous additional funding that that and many other trusts throughout Wales have received—the local health board in Pembrokeshire has received a 28 per cent. increase in the past three years—means that they should be able to manage. The Assembly's track record on investment in the NHS is excellent—

Nick Ainger: Absolutely. This year, capital expenditure will be £186 million, next year it will be £220 million, and in 2007–08, £309 million. Surely that shows the rapid increase in investment in the NHS throughout Wales, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on receiving substantial investment for a brand-new hospital, which will be able to reconfigure a number of smaller hospitals to improve services for his constituents.

Nick Ainger: I am not sure whether that is true. Certainly the result on Monday may affect his future.
	The hon. Gentleman must explain to the House why he fought a general election on a manifesto that proposed the introduction of patient passports, which would have cut—

Nick Ainger: It was a temptation that I could not resist, Mr. Speaker. I apologise.
	Wales is addressing its problems. [Interruption.] Yes, there are problems: no one is denying that. All of us, as constituency Members, know that there have been problems—but they are not due to a lack of resources: that is the issue. The hon. Gentleman and his party have no plans whatever to address the issues. That is the point.

Nia Griffith: What representations is the Minister making to Arriva trains about what I call the peapod train—a minuscule green train that runs from Llanelli westwards and never has enough places for its passengers?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is right that take-up is lower than it should be. I welcome the fact that, in the budget agreed yesterday, the Assembly has decided to invest an extra £1.5 million to promote council tax benefit take-up. My hon. Friend should also bear in mind the fantastic help that the Government are giving to pensioners in Wales: £200 winter fuel payments, upwards of £400 council tax support, which will help a significant majority of nearly 500,000 households in Wales. The over-75s are benefiting as 186,000 pensioner households in Wales have free television licences—Labour delivering for pensioners in Wales. There are free bus passes for the over-60s provided by a Labour-run Assembly—Labour delivering once again for pensioners in Wales. We will have the first ever champion of pensioners in Europe when the Bill to appoint a commissioner for pensioners in Wales goes through Parliament. Yet again, Labour is delivering for pensioners in Wales.

Bill Wiggin: In the past five years, alcohol-related deaths in Wales have soared by 20 per cent. That is not scaremongering. One in 13 people is fighting alcoholism, and 40 per cent. of patients admitted to accident and emergency are suffering from alcohol-related ailments or illnesses. Does the Minister not see the contradiction between the proposed total ban on smoking in Wales and the damage resulting from extending licensing hours?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is right that the existing police forces are popular with local people. However, HMIC identified a point that is very important for all hon. Members, especially those with constituencies in Wales, namely, that we face new challenges of terrorism, drug trafficking and serious organised crime that the present structure in Wales of four separate police forces acting on their own does not have the capacity to meet. That is why we are proposing a different structure, but it is important that neighbourhood policing and local accountability are retained.

Albert Owen: My right hon. Friend will know my concerns about an all-Wales force. They are shared by people across north Wales, who fear a possible drift of resources to south Wales. Will he give an assurance that budgetary controls under any restructuring will mean that resources remain in the regions for community policing?

Lembit �pik: First, may I thank the Secretary of State and other colleagues for the support that they showed to me personally following my brother's death last week? Hon. Members have been very understanding and sympathetic.
	I understand that the Government are committed to a consultation about the proposed merger of the police forces in Wales. The proposals are opposed by the Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Plaid Cymru parties, and by a large proportion of Labour MPs. Will the Secretary of State therefore assure the House that the consultation will be genuine and that, if there is overwhelming opposition to the merger, the Government will take that feedback on board and think again?

Peter Hain: The whole House does indeed express its sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, as we did last Wednesday.
	The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should ignore the fact that HMIC has pointed out that the existing policing structureincluding in Walesdoes not have the capacity to deal with the new, big threats posed by crimes at level two and especially level three, including terrorism. We can protect neighbourhood policing and regional accountability, including in north Wales and Dyfed Powys, and still make sure that we have a much better and more modern police structure that is able to deal with the new threats.

Q1.

Tony Blair: I entirely understand the desire for the Merseytram scheme, and in December 2002 we committed somewhere in the region of 170 million to that scheme, but the trouble is, as my right hon. Friend knows, that the costs of the scheme have risen considerably. So we are perfectly willing and happy to make that contribution to travel on Merseyside but it has to be done within an overall framework that is affordable.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is of course right that the numbers who are unemployed are down and the numbers who are employed are up. The most important thingapart from the effect on people's livelihoods, living standards and prospects for success in lifeis the fact that as a result of the reduction in unemployment and increases in employment, we are spending about 5 billion a year less on benefits. That is why part of the welfare reform that the Government have managed to put through is getting people off benefit and into work, and it is why the new deal should, of course, remain.
	Q2.

Tony Blair: It is important that we continue this year and next year to roll out the local community policing teams. The combination of warranted police officers and community support officers is enormously popular in London and elsewhere. As a result of that, we have been managing to get crime down, but there is still a great deal more that we have to do, including, as my hon. Friend says, rolling out the neighbourhoods policing teams, and also ensuring that we introduce the new measures on both organised crime and antisocial behaviour.
	Q3.

Tony Blair: Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady. We will wait and see what happens next week.
	Q4.

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised the issue with both with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of Bulgaria, and has done so in the proper way, as this is subject to an appeal that Mr. Shields has lodged. I understand entirely the concerns of the Shields family, and the consular staff are doing all that they can to assist them and the legal team to prepare for the final appeal, and they will continue to do so. At the present juncture in time, that is all that I can reasonably say.

Tony Blair: I have answered that before, and I answer it again in the same way now. I entirely understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to see my retirement, but he is the fourth Conservative leader I have faced. Next week, I shall face the fifth, but I must say one more thing to Opposition Members. If one looks at all the previous Conservative leaders I have faced, the first one was Conservative leader for six years; the second one, for four years; the third one for two years, one month and sixteen days; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has lasted just two years and one month. I do not know whether that is a very good basis on which the next one should start.

Tony Blair: I may have to say, on that one, a lot done, a lot left to do. However, there is one simple test of whether one succeeds or fails in politics, and that is based on putting one's case to the British people. The British people elected the Labour party in 1997, they elected it again in 2001, they elected it again in 2005, and, given the current state of the Conservative party, I have no doubt that they will do so again when the next election comes.
	Q5.

Tony Blair: Yes, I am grateful for the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues in order to discuss that. He is right in what he says. The important thing is that we have put additional extra investment in the science baseindeed, we have more than doubled it over the past few years. But my hon. Friend is right: we must make sure that co-operation takes place across Europe. We also have to make sure that the right relationship between business and science is established. That is where many of the knowledge jobs of the future will come from. I shall be happy to meet him and his hon. Friends in order to discuss the matter.
	Q6.

Tony Blair: I am delighted to congratulate West Yorkshire police. That is part of the work being done by police forces right across the country, which has seen crime come down so significantly over the past few years. We now have record numbers of police and under this Government, as the latest British crime survey figures show once they are broken down, crime has fallen in every region of Britain.
	Q7.

Tony Blair: The investment to create the new generation of community hospitals will go ahead, but in every single area people have to decide how they will best configure their own local health services. The hon. Gentleman says that all people can see is closures, but I will tell him what people see. They see, for example, in cancer and cardiac care, massive improvements since 1997. They see in new hospital buildings the importance of the capital investment that we have put in. When we came to office, many people had to wait over 18 months for their operation sometimes over a yearin their tens of thousands. From the end of this month, there will be a six-month maximum wait; by the end of 2008, an 18-week maximum from the GPs' surgery right through to the operating theatre. These are the changes that are being made. But, of course, how the money is spent is best done at local level. For the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to say that nothing in the health service has improved over these past few years[Interruption.] So a lot has improved; well at least we are agreed on that.
	Q8.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the important things that came out of that conference was the agreement of the code of conduct on terrorism, which contained the sentence that terrorism can never be justified, and included some of the strongest language that we have ever managed to agree at Euromed on this issue. That is extremely important not just for the measures that are contained in that agreement, but also in terms of the signal that it sends of the absolute determination of all of us to defeat the scourge of terrorism. Sitting round the table at Euromed, it was interesting that not merely European countries such as Spain and the UK have suffered from terrorism, but countries such as Egypt, Algeria and Jordan. That combined determination to defeat it was very evident.
	Q9.

Tony Blair: The point that my hon. Friend makes is entirely reasonable, and yes, we should ensure that that position is safeguarded during restructuring. What my hon. Friend draws attention to is the fact that the additional sums of moneyin his case an increase in real terms of 5.8 per cent.has meant that we can improve services for people and bring waiting times down, all within the NHS where there is more hospital building and more nurses, doctors and consultants, who, in addition, are better paid than ever before. That is why in nurse training, as in teacher training, more and more people are willing to come forward, despite high levels of employment, for those occupations. But he is absolutely right: we must ensure that in the change in the boundaries, we safeguard the interests of the poorest communities.
	Q10.

Tony Blair: I have no doubt that we will get the right mix of services for the hon. Gentleman's constituency and others. He knows why the campus could not go ahead, but that should not detract from the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds of extra money are going into hospital building. The real-terms increase for the health authority in his area[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear about the increases in health spending, but they are going to. I do not know why a Minister did not go to the committee[Interruption.]

John Hutton: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the publication of today's report by the Pensions Commission. In making its recommendations, the Pensions Commission has acknowledged the progress that we have made since 1997. Its proposals are designed to build on that success, and I believe it important to consider them in that context.
	As Lord Turner has recognised, the Government's first priority on entering office in 1997 was to tackle pensioner poverty, which was absolutely the right thing to do. We have succeeded in lifting nearly 2 million pensioners out of absolute poverty and are now spending 11 billion extra each year on pensioners, with almost half of that spending going to the poorest third. Thanks to measures such as the minimum income guarantee, pension credit, winter fuel payments and a 7 per cent. real-terms increase in the basic state pension, we have ensured that pensioners will never again suffer the indignity of living on as little as 69 a week, which was the scandalous legacy of pensioner poverty that we inherited when we came into office.
	In our second phase of reform, we took action to tackle the loss of confidence in the private pensions market. That included the pensions mis-selling scandal we inherited. In 1997, less than 2 per cent. of pension mis-selling cases had been satisfactorily resolved. By the end of 2002, more than 99 per cent. of consumers with mis-selling claims had been compensated, with total compensation reaching 11 billion. Through the pension protection fund, the pensions regulator and the financial assistance scheme, the Pensions Act 2004 is helping to respond to the problems experienced by defined-benefit occupational pensions and to boost security for scheme members. The introduction of the Sandler suite and the stakeholder pension has been an important step in facilitating low-cost private savings. I believe that that amounts to a record of achievement of which this Government can be rightly proud.
	Despite that progress, we recognise that there are still significant and serious issues that we need to address. I believe that there are three. First, there are the demographics. When our grandparents reached 65 they could expect to live another 11 years in retirement. The 20th century's tremendous advances in science, welfare and health mean that today we can expect to live another 19 years beyond 65 and our children can expect to live another 24 years. In 1950, we spent 18 per cent. of our adult life in retirement; now, we spend 30 per cent. in retirement. By 2050, there will be 50 per cent. more pensioners than there are today. Critically, by the same time there will be two people of working age for every pensioner, compared with 10 people 100 years ago.
	Secondly, we know that people need to save more. Our 2002 Green Paper first highlighted the need to enable people to save more or to work longer to achieve the income that they want in retirement. It also established the Pensions Commission to review our long-term savings regime. The commission has calculated that nearly 10 million people are not saving enough for their retirement. Some have suggested that that challenge could be averted by the growth in housing assets, but that offers, at best, only a partial solution. People would need to release 100,000-worth of equity to generate 100 per week of pension provision, which is far from easy given that the average house price is now 180,000 and people still need to live somewhere in retirement.
	Thirdly, we know that the existing system is complexyes, possibly the most complex in the world. It produces unfair outcomes for women and carers, and there remains the question of how to ensure an adequate and sustainable state pension for future generations. As Lord Turner said today,
	the problems in our pensions system will grow increasingly worse unless a new pensions settlement for the 21st century is now debated, agreed and put in place.
	Put simply, we cannot afford to ignore the problems that the Pensions Commission has identified. We must instead ensure that future generations can sensibly plan for their retirement. The choice is not between the status quo and reform; it is a question of how we actnot whether or when.
	The Pensions Commission was very clear in its first report last year that there is not currently a pensions crisis, and it made that clear again this morning. But the pensions of tomorrow clearly depend on decisions that people make to save today. It has argued that a failure to respond to this challenge would lead to a crisis in 20 years' time. If we do nothing, future pensioners will be 30 per cent. worse off relative to workers than they are today.
	The commission has put forward a comprehensive package of reforms to address those challenges. In relation to state provision, it recommends
	a reform of State pension provision to make it simpler to understand and less means tested than it would become if current indexation arrangements continued.
	It makes it clear that there are a variety of options to secure its objectives. Its preferred way forward is a higher basic state pension indexed to average earnings growth, ideally starting in 2010 or 2011 as the public expenditure benefits of the rise in women's state pension age begin to flow through. The commission has also proposed a universal basic state pension based on residency rather than contributions.
	The trade-off would be a higher state pension age. That would be phased in gradually in proportion to the increase in life expectancy. For example, it could rise to 66 by 2030, 67 by 2040, and 68 by 2050. Those changes would not affect anyone aged 50 and over. Furthermore, based on the commission's assumptions, today's 41-year-old could face only one additional year of working age, a 32-year-old two years, and a 23-year-old three years.
	Those changes are designed to underpin a major extension of workplace savings. Here, the commission recommends a new, simple, low-cost savings scheme. All employees would automatically be enrolled into either a high-quality employer pension scheme or a newly created national pensions saving scheme, but with the right to opt out. Employers would be required to make a matching contribution. The commission also makes proposals to tackle inequality in the pensions system, especially for women and carers.
	The Government welcome the broad framework of the Pensions Commission proposals and options and believe that they are the right basis for the debate to come. There is much to be discussed and decided about the detail of that framework. Our response will be based on the five key tests that I set out last week.
	First, do the proposals promote personal responsibility? The role of the state is to provide a floor through which no one can fall but, as we have made clear, the primary responsibility for security in old age must ultimately rest with individuals and their families.
	Secondly, are the proposals fair? Our future system must continue to protect the poorest. It must be fair to women and carers, employers and workers in the public and private sectors and those who have saved.
	Thirdly, are the proposals affordable? Several points in them raise the prospect of additional Government spending. For example, there is the re-linking of the basic state pension to earnings, scrapped by the previous Conservative Government. There is also the proposal to make the basic state pension universal from the age of 75, which would benefit many women pensioners. We therefore have to test all the costings. We cannot make decisions without first determining the affordability of the proposals and there is no point in us or anyone else making commitments on anything other than a sensible and sustainable financial basis.
	As the Chancellor has made clear, there will be no relaxation in our fiscal discipline and we will not put the long-term stability of the public finances at risk. That test will be central. A near 50 per cent. increase in the number of pensioners between now and 2050 presents obvious challenges and choices for the country about the proportion of its wealth that should be used to support retirement.
	Fourthly, do the proposals simplify the system? Any credible package of reform must represent a clear deal between citizens and the state so that people know what the Government will do for them and what is expected of them in return.
	Fifthly, are the proposals sustainable? People must have the confidence to plan for their retirement. An enduring national consensus must be our goal.
	The Pensions Commission's first report last October was a comprehensive analysis of the UK pensions system. I believe that today's report is an important milestone on the way to a lasting pensions settlement. I should like to put on record on behalf of the Governmentand, I hope, the Houseour thanks to Lord Turner and his fellow commissioners Jeannie Drake and Professor John Hills for their work during the past three years. They have made a tremendous contribution to one of the most important public policy challenges that face the country today.
	The publication of the Pension Commission's second report today marks the beginning of the new national debate, not the end. As far as the specific recommendations are concerned, we are ruling nothing in and nothing out. We will welcome ideas and proposals from the political parties, employers, trade unions and everyone with an interest in the future of our pensions system.
	In the next few months, we will examine in detail the commission's policy recommendations. The Pensions Commission has called for a national debate about the right way forward to start as soon as possible. I agree. We will therefore undertake a major consultation exercise, talking to people of all ages, in all parts of the country. I have asked the Pensions Commission to continue its involvement in the debate in the next few months as we move from diagnosis and analysis to proposition and decision. I want the debate to involve every section of our community as we work towards the publication of a White Paper in the spring.
	Previous Labour Governments have risen to the challenge of securing long-term reform of our pensions system to meet the challenges of their time. From Clement Attlee to Barbara Castle, crucial decisions have been taken by politicians who could see the benefits of long-term reform. I believe that it is our turn now to see the scale and depth of the challenge in the way that previous generations of politicians viewed such challenges. This should be our benchmark in laying the foundations for reform in the 21st century.
	The need to get it right is clear; the responsibility to do so is even clearerfor this generation and the next.

Malcolm Rifkind: As the hon. Member for Bolsover is a very worthy pensioner, he should listen carefully to the exchanges taking place.
	Does the Secretary of State agree with the Institute of Chartered Accountants that the single most important cause of the crisis in savings was the decision that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took eight years ago to remove the tax relief on the dividends of pension funds? Is not it indefensible that the Chancellor, who is the prime cause of the savings crisis, should now try to sabotage those who are trying to resolve the problem, which is largely of his making?

David Laws: I congratulate Lord Turner on his report. We agree with its basic analysis and long-term vision of the pension system. We, like the Conservative party, are willing to work with the Secretary of State to find a consensus on reforming the pension system, if he is able to find a consensus within the Government with which it is possible to work. May I test the extent of that consensus by asking him whether he agrees with the Turner report's conclusion that the existing pension system is not fit for purpose looking forward? Similarly, would the Chancellor agree with those words from Lord Turner's report?
	Do the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer share Lord Turner's analysis that significant future growth of means-testing would undermine voluntary private pension provision by the very groups of people most in danger of under-provision?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the Chancellor and his lieutenants were wrong to brief that the Turner proposals were unaffordable? Will he acknowledge that Lord Turner addressed that directly in his report?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that we face a choice between two alternatives? We can choose either the complex means-testing system introduced by the Chancellor in 1997 and designed initially to deal with the issue of poorer pensioners, or the simple system described by Lord Turner, which would give people responsibility for individual savings on top of a better state pension. Are not both the Chancellor and Lord Turner talking about affordable systems, and is not the real issue which is likely to be more sustainable in the years ahead?
	Does the Secretary of State agree with Lord Turner and me that it would be unsustainable for 70 per cent. of pensioners, or more, to retire in 2050 and have to claim means-tested benefits? Would it not be ludicrous to suggest, as the Chancellor seemed to in his leaked letter, that a Labour Government would consider breaking the link between earnings and means-tested benefits for some of the poorest pensioners in Britain? Is that not utter nonsense?
	Does the Secretary of State agree, again, with Lord Turner and me that it is also ludicrous to expect, as the Chancellor seems to, that the share of national income devoted to pensions will remain static over the next 40 years despite a 50 per cent. increase in the pensioner population? Does he agree that the Chancellor should not be allowed to wreck a consensus on pensions reform that includes not just those in different parts of the House, but every major body that made representations to the commission?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that if there is a higher state pension, the trade-off will have to be a significantly better state system that is fairer to women and takes people out of means-testing? Does he agree that so far the Government, including his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, have made a pig's ear of the reform of public-sector pensions, which will make the Turner proposals much more difficult to introduce? Does he agree that sooner or later the Government will need to go back and think about the affordability and sustainability of public sector pensions if they are to reach a conclusion that is sustainable and fair to everyone in Britain?
	A consensus is emerging in Britain about the way in which pensions policy should develop. Sadly, it seems to be a consensus with which only one man is out of step: the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a tragedy for people in this countryfor every pensioner in this countryif we missed the opportunity to secure a national consensus because of the veto of one powerful man in the Cabinet?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks, and indeed for all that he said. Obviously we shall need to examine the commission's proposals in detail, along with the means by which they can be implemented.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned means-testing. We shall have to examine the specific issues raised by Lord Turner and his fellow commissioners, because it would be impossible for us to deal with the country's long-term pension needs without doing so.
	I accept my right hon. Friend's point, and I look forward to his contribution to the debate, which I am sure will be significant.

Peter Viggers: I declare an interest in the pensions industry and I wish the Secretary of State well in finding a solution to its problems, which have largely been created by the present Government over the last eight years. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he will not succeed in his search if he shackles himself to the deal with the public sector unions, which will allow public sector employees to retire at the age of 60? A great deal of sacrifice is expected from everyone, as there is no such thing as a cheap pension. If he allows the combination of a complacent Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the bullying and blackmailing attitude of a union before an election in threatening a strike to dominate the starting point of his search, he will not succeed.

Vera Baird: I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that he accepts the inequities of the current system so far as women are concerned, and I ask him to digest very carefully the recommendation that future accruals of basic state pension be done on an individual basis. It is essential that we abolish the outmoded, totally unacceptable and inequitable basis on which women get a pension: dependency on their spouseif, indeed, there is a spouse. I also ask my right hon. Friend to note, when considering the recommendation that pensions ultimately become universal, the potentially great benefits for women. Does he further acknowledge that if universality offers the way ahead for the young, there is none the less a present and urgent need to reconfigure national insurance credits, so that women who are part-way through their careers do not suffer from these now well acknowledged inequities when they retire?

David Heyes: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the protection of abandoned inland waterways, and for connected purposes.
	The Bill will safeguard opportunities for the restoration of inland waterways, especially canals, by ensuring a more consistent approach to planning and development activities that affect the original lines of abandoned waterways.
	I should start by explaining how I came to attach importance to the need for this Bill. My constituency has a rich canal history. In the centre of Ashton-under-Lyne, the Portland basin is a vital hub in the national canal network at the confluence of the Ashton, Peak Forest and Huddersfield Narrow canals. The Ashton canal runs through Droylsden to Manchester to meet the Rochdale and Bridgewater canals, forming part of the Cheshire ring. In recent years, we have seen the successful refurbishment or restoration of all of these canals and, most recently, millennium funding has enabled the restoration of the Rochdale canal through Failsworth in the Oldham part of my constituency.
	Yet there is a missing link in this canal success story, and I should declare an interest as a member of the society that is working towards the restoration of the abandoned Hollinwood branch of the Ashton canal. In some places, especially through the Daisy Nook country park, this canal has been cosmetically refurbished. In other places, it has been infilled and built on. What is more, the construction of the M60 motorway has severed the original line in two places. Despite that, the Hollinwood canal society believes that it can be restored. I agree, but we are realistic about the time scale, which could be as long as three decades. I know that similar challenges are faced by many hon. Members in their constituencies
	The Government's commitment to the future of inland waterways was clearly stated in the transport White Paper and the Waterways for Tomorrow document explains that the Government want
	to promote the inland waterways, encouraging a modern, integrated and sustainable approach to their use.
	The document highlights the benefits of inland waterways in terms of leisure and recreation, heritage, the natural environment and regeneration.
	Planning guidance already exists in relation to inland waterways. Planning policy guidance note 12 states that local authorities might:
	wish to safeguard sites for transport related development which might otherwise be lost to other development, such as sites adjoining railway sidings or wharves alongside waterways and ports.
	That is the problem, however: local authorities might wish to safeguard such sites but, then again, they might not.
	In similar vein, PPG13 exhorts local authorities to work with all those concerned, including private operators, British Waterways and voluntary groups, to develop the potential of inland waterways. In drawing up development plans and determining planning applications, they are advised, among other things, to seek to protect and enhance the waterway environment,
	where these are viable options.
	The difficulty is that planning guidance is just thatguidance, and not mandatory. It is open to interpretation by planning officers, and one planner's viable is another's non-starter.
	The waterways recovery group is one of the leading voluntary organisations involved in the restoration of canals. In the most recent edition of its magazine Navvies, the editor makes clear the commonly held view amongst volunteers in this sectorthat planners and developers often do no more than pay lip service to planning policy guidance. His article points out some of the difficulties. For example, PPG13 stipulates that new road construction should incorporate full provision for canals under restoration, yet it does not cover waterways that have the potential for restoration where work has not yet started. It does not cover diversionary routes that have been identified because the original line has already been compromised. It does not prevent roads being built so close to the canal line, alongside it rather than across it, that future restoration is rendered impractical and extremely costly.
	I know, from what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has told meand I am glad to see him in his place this afternoonthat that is precisely what has gone wrong in his constituency, where ambitions to restore the Lichfield and Hatherton canals have been frustrated by the failure of PPG13 to place enough of an obligation on the local planning authority to protect the line of the canal from adverse development that has hindered its reconstruction.
	One volunteer in my constituency has expressed frustration that preserving the line of a canal can hinge on whether the senior council officer with local responsibility for inland waterways is sympathetic and enthusiastic or cautious and pessimistic about restoration. Given the time scale involved in restoration, changes in personnel are inevitable and that brings the risk of inconsistency and uncertainty.
	Another concern is the difference in approach towards urban, inter-urban and rural locations. Developers and planners see the benefit of waterside locations and urban sites are very likely to be restored within regeneration projects. In my own constituency, in Droylsden town centre, work has started on a multi-million pound marina, with quality housing alongside leisure and commercial developments. The line of the Hollinwood branch canal has been protected, for a short distance, as part of that scheme. Also, on the banks of the restored Rochdale canal in Failsworth, there are plans for a new district centre, including retail and waterside housing development. However, the relevance of regenerating small stretches of canal and canal-side properties within urban regeneration projects must be called into question if the original waterways between will never become navigable again. The whole point of a marina is surely that boats will visit.
	Where the line runs through a rural or inter-urban setting, there is no developer interest and attracting funding is much more difficult. The burden often falls on volunteer groups to bid for funding. Volunteers devote an enormous amount of time to restoration of canals and lobbying of local authorities, funding bodies and others. Many of those volunteers have incredibly detailed knowledge and a great deal of technical expertise. Their work has had, and will continue to have, an invaluable impact on the restoration of canals. However, it is regrettable that the future of inland waterways is so heavily dependent on the existence, skills and abilities of local volunteer groups. In areas where there are no volunteers diligently checking every planning application, the danger is that the lines of more and more abandoned waterways will be permanently compromised.
	So, the problems are the lack of consistency of approach between local authorities; lack of consistency of approach between rural, urban and inter-urban areas; an over-reliance on the existence, skills and abilities of volunteers; the fact that construction projects that affect the line of disused inland waterways continue to be allowed, all too often without adequate consideration of the impact on the potential for future restoration; and the fact that PPGs are open to wide variations in interpretation and are guidance rather than being mandatory.
	As long as guidance is applied in a patchy way, with variations in approach between one local authority and another and between urban, inter-urban and rural areas, the Government's vision of an integrated and sustainable approach to the use of inland waterways is at risk. The Bill will safeguard the future of inland waterways by preserving the lines of much of the abandoned network until such time as the funding, and the capacity of organisations such as British Waterways, is in place to effect the necessary restoration.
	The Bill will establish a requirement for local authorities to consult all those concerned in the inland waterways industryprivate operators, British Waterways and other navigation authorities and the voluntary sectorto develop the potential of inland waterways in drawing up development plans and determining applications. In short, it will translate current guidance into legislation.
	The Bill will establish a requirement for local authorities to preserve the lines of disused inland waterways to ensure the possibility of future restoration to a standard that meets the normal requirements of navigation. We must act now to prevent planning decisions continuing to be made that close the door forever on the eventual restoration of many of our inland waterways. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by David Heyes, Andrew Gwynne, Kelvin Hopkins, Paul Flynn, Michael Fabricant, Dr. Brian Iddon, Andrew Miller, Lynda Waltho and Mr. Ian Austin.

Lembit �pik: Three in one.

Gregory Campbell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13 [Clause 1], leave out '2008' and insert '2012'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 3 [Clause 1], leave out '2008' and insert '2012'.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I will endeavour to address the questions that were raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), whom I am delighted to see in his place today, and our thoughts continue to be with him.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) has already said, were are not yet in a normal situation in Northern Ireland. It is not that we need politics to normalise; it is that we need society to normalise. We need to have the terrorist threat removed. No one would suggestthough at times I wonderthat we do not have a normal political system in the United Kingdom, and that this Parliament is part of that normal political process. Yet across the United Kingdom there is a threat from terrorism that has required the Government to introduce special legislation and enact special powers for the police and others to deal with that threat. So we are not talking about normalising, or the necessity to normalise, politics to remove the need for this legislation; it is about dealing with the threat from terrorism.
	We have special provisions in Northern Ireland for our judicial system because it is not possible when there is a significant terrorist threat to operate a normal judicial system to deal with trials relating to terrorist activity. In the past, witnesses have been intimidated, and I am aware of many cases in which the prosecution collapsed because witnesses were intimidated by terrorist suspects and organisations. The potential remains for members of juries to be open to such intimidation, hence the need for the Diplock courts system.
	If the Provisional IRA were to maintain a ceasefire, and if we were to receive evidence that it was not participating in further activity, either criminal or terrorist, it would not represent an end to terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, welcome though it would be. We have clear evidence, which is highlighted in the Independent Monitoring Commission reports, that the main loyalist paramilitary groups are engaged in ongoing terrorist activity, and the republican terrorist organisations are engaged in such activity, too.
	The so-called Real IRA and the so-called Continuity IRA are both splinter groups from the Provisional IRA, and they both continue to be active. The Government's legislation dealing with the release of prisoners and the proscription of terrorist organisations specifies those organisations as being ineligible to receive the benefits of Government concessions, because, as the Government accept, they are continuing to engage in and prepare for acts of terrorismthe Government also accept that that is true of certain loyalist groups. Indeed, I recently participated in a Standing Committee that dealt with the specification of the Ulster Volunteer Force, which no longer benefits from certain Government concessions, because the Government have judged that it is continuing to engage in or prepare for acts of terrorism.
	It is clear that there is a continuing threat from terrorism, and the judgment that must be made is how long we think that it might continue. At this stage, there is no evidence that the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA have any intention of ending their campaign of violence within the next two years, because they have not made a statement indicating that that is the case. We are aware that a debate is currently taking place within the mainstream loyalist groups, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association, and we will encourage them to move down the path to a peaceful existence and to ending their violence and crime for good, and we would like to see all armed terrorist groups in Northern Ireland do the same.
	We must be prudent in planning ahead and provide for every eventuality. To borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, we need an insurance policy, and I want an insurance policy that will not expire before a reasonable period has elapsed, which would allow real progress on ending all forms of terrorism in Northern Ireland. I have no basis for believing that that will happen within a two-year time frame, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry has tabled the amendment. The provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 are still needed in Northern Ireland in the foreseeable future. Extending the period specified in the Bill by a further four years is a prudent step that will provide a reasonable time frame in which to allow developments to take place, pressure to be applied and, I hope, those terrorist organisations that continue to engage in or prepare for acts of terrorism to see sense and endor for the security forces to bring to an endtheir terrorist campaigns.
	I hope that I have addressed some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I appreciate the desire to normalise society in Northern Ireland, but there is also a need to protect society and the judicial process in Northern Ireland. In recent days, we have seen that organisations that have declared that they have ended their involvement with violence still have the capacity to frustrate the judicial process. The Robert McCartney case is a clear example how the Provisional IRA has sought to frustrate the process of justice in recent timesin that case, by cleaning the murder scene and refusing to co-operate.
	We must bear it in mind that the main republican movement in Northern Ireland still refuses to support the police and to recognise courts of law. Even those organisations that claim to have ended their campaigns still do not recognise the judicial process in Northern Ireland, and I therefore suggest that we still have some way to go. In those circumstances, our amendment is a reasonable and prudent safeguard. If the circumstances change within the four-year time frame, the amendment would not prevent the Government from returning to this House to seek to foreshorten the time scale and introduce new proposals. I urge the Government to reflect on the matter and not to end the provisions and safeguards for the judicial system prematurely.

William McCrea: I thank hon. Members for their understanding when I intervened on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in last week's debate.
	Terrorism is an ongoing reality in Northern Ireland. It is true that we have heard certain statements; it is true that many wish to tell us that life has changed dramatically; and it is true that murders no longer take place day after day after daywe are so thankful that that is the reality. However, that does not mean that terrorism has ceased, because it has changed its form. I have never seen or heard real repentance for their terrorist acts by Sinn Fein-IRA or any of the other paramilitary groupings in Northern Irish society.
	As far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned, the tag or name used by a terrorist organisation does not matter, because all acts of terrorism are totally unacceptable in any civilised, democratic society, and no act of terrorism should be overlooked. Last week, I asked the Secretary of State a question about the McCartney case and specifically drew his attention to the report that the Provisional IRA has threatened the McCartney family, who have had to move out of their home. The Secretary of State's answer was no answer as far as I am concerned, because it seems that no one but no one in Government circles is willing to name the Provisional IRA in connection with anything.
	When the Provisional IRA does something, we are told that it is the work of an individual who is a bad apple. As far as terrorist organisations are concerned, individuals do not exist in Northern Irelandsuch individuals could not exist within their communities without the backing of particular terrorist organisations. We who live in Northern Ireland know that different forms of terrorism such as intimidationI have mentioned the McCartney familyhave been occurring.

Nigel Dodds: In supporting the amendment tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), I intend to be brief, because many points have been covered by my hon. Friends. I remind the Minister and the whole House of the tenor of the Second Reading debate on this important piece of legislation, during which great emphasis was placed on the need for caution as we deal with these issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) asked us to look at matters optimistically. I admire his wish to do that. Certainly, we all want to be optimistic about the political situation in Northern Ireland, but we have to provide reassurance to people in the Province that important legislative provisions will not be cast aside before there is an absolute guarantee that they will not be required. It seems to me that the Bill is rushing at fences, because there is not the slightest evidence to suggest that by 31 July 2007 there will not still be a need for the provisions on Diplock courts, for instance.
	I remind the House that we are talking about the provisions in part 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 coming to an end at the end of July 2007in some 18 months' timeunless a Minister comes to this House and seeks to renew them for a further year. I understand that on Second Reading the Secretary of State said that that would take place by way of an affirmative procedure. These provisions could come to an end within a very short time scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) was right to point out that there is not the slightest evidence to show that, by that date, we will have seen the end of organisations such as those that he mentioned, especially dissident republicans or those on the loyalist side or, indeed, the disbandment of the Provisional IRA. That must be borne in mind.
	According to the statement that the IRA issued in July, although it may not be engaged in some of the activities that it has carried out in the past 30 or 35 years, it will continue to exist as an illegal terrorist organisation in its aims and objectives. It will not have disbanded by the date that we are considering. Nothing that the leaders of the provisional movement, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, have said recently suggests that they have any intention of disbanding the organisation. We therefore need to ensure that we do not rush ahead and do away with provisions when evidence exists to show that they may still be required.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) that, if he were to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question, he would be straying far wide of the amendment under discussion.

Shaun Woodward: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is a realist. Indeed, everyone who has participated in the debate is being realistic about their assumptions.
	A judgment will be made in a few years' time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers will not take risks with the security situation of the people of Northern Ireland. As we have again and again made absolutely and categorically clear, while it is our intention that the Bill will expire, it could be renewed with the safety net of 12 months. However, if at the end of that time the judgment of the Secretary of State, based on the advice of his security Ministers, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others, is that other provisions need to be brought in, they would be. That, at the moment, is not our judgment in terms of how we forecast the future. However, we reserve the right to proceed on that basis.
	It is important, as the hon. Gentleman says, to be realistic. It is important, therefore, to examine the real facts. If we compare this year to a date at the height of the troubles in 1972, the difference and the reality is extremely stark. We are talking about five deaths compared to 470 in that one year. There were 86 bombings compared to 1,853 and there were 144 shooting incidents144 too manycompared to more than 10,500.
	The hon. Gentleman should rightly say that he will take no lectures from anyone in the House about understanding the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland. I respect that, as all hon. Members respect those who represent Northern Ireland in this place.
	As for the remarks of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I was moved by the observations that he made in an intervention last week, which commanded the respect of every Member of the House. Despite the huge respect that I am sure every Member, including myself, has for him, we may not agree with some of the analysis. However, I respect the basis on which the hon. Gentleman makes the comments that he does.

Shaun Woodward: Without wishing to be drawn back to the discussion on Diplock courts, which we had in the previous debate, it is our judgment that the timetable that we have set out in the Bill is a realistic one with which to proceed. However, we have put the caveats in place. There can be an extension of a further period of 12 months. At the end of that, should the forecast not be metwe believe that it should bewe would then be able to review the security situation and put forward appropriate measures. It must stand firmly and clearly in the minds of all right hon. and hon. Members that we will protect the security of the people of Northern Ireland at all costs.
	Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have committed to a programme of security normalisation that culminates in the repeal of the provisions that we are discussing, we have continued to say that we do not take the environment for granted. The Bill contains provisions to extend the life of part 7 for a further year after 2007. It will be used if the enabling environment is not sustained and security normalisation is not possible within that time frame. I am sure that all hon. Members want to see a robust system in place. We believe that the Bill will ensure for the foreseeable future that the special measures necessary to safeguard the security of people in Northern Ireland are robust and are in place, but that there is realisation that there are causes for optimism for the future.
	Counter-terrorist legislation, including the part 7 provisions, is an exceptional measure, and it must be appropriate to the security situation. Coming back, would give Parliament the opportunity to debate in detail what provision would be necessary and most appropriate at that time. We feel that this is the right approach. Therefore, we urge the House to resist the amendments.

Lembit �pik: Good luck!

Laurence Robertson: I begin by returning my thanks to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with the Bill. I raised a couple of issues in Committee, which by their detailed nature required him to write to me, and he duly did, explaining the situation fully. As a result, I did not pursue the matters further.
	I think I can speak for a number of hon. Members when I say that there is some confusion about how the Government assess the situation in Northern Ireland. On the one hand we have the on-the-runs legislation, which suggests that the bad situation that we have had in Northern Ireland for so very long is coming to an end. On the other hand we have Bills such as this, which by their very introduction would suggest that the situation in Northern Ireland is not as it should be.
	The Opposition regret the need to introduce the Bill. We wish that we had normality in the Province. On every occasion I have visited the Province over many years, it has been made clear that one of the very things that people want is to be treated normally, both politically and with regard to the security situation. However, we accept that it is not possible at the moment to move towards that.
	As a number of hon. Members have said, particularly those from the DUP, there is great concern at the fact that the violence continues. The nature of the violence has changed, but the violence continues. I quoted the recent IMC report in Committee, and I shall quote it again:
	The involvement of paramilitaries in organised crime goes deep.
	That is a great concern. The report continues:
	We have concluded that because of this paramilitary involvement organised crime is the biggest long term threat to the rule of law in Northern Ireland . . . The criminals are flexible and resilient.
	Those words are sufficient to chill most people. Such comments are very worrying, and I think that they persuaded DUP Members to press their amendment, which suggested that the provisions of the Terrorism Act should be extended not only to 2008, but to 2012.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way in his excellent summing up of the Bill's progress. The organisations involved in racketeering, protection rackets and intimidation include not only off-limits paramilitary groups such as Continuity IRA and the Real IRA but some of the mainstream terrorist groups. Does he agree that it is particularly depressing when the Government make massive concessions to such groups, as they are under the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill?

Lembit �pik: First, I want to thank right hon. and hon. Members for their continuing kindness and support, and their empathic approach, following the death of my brother. I recognise that while this is a personal tragedy for me, what we are really debating today is a whole raft of personal tragedies that have taken place in Northern Ireland as a result not of destiny or nature but of the deeds of men and women who resorted to terrorism. I should like us to remember that despite the formal and objective way in which we must debate these matters, we are really dealing with matters of the heart and trying to ensure security and closure for individuals who have suffered through no fault of their own. That is why the legislation is so important and why I am grateful to the Minister for having taken a serious and responsible approach in responding to the points that we have made, even if he may have sometimes disagreed.
	I congratulate the Minister on his erudite and entertaining approach, even though we have sometimes had to endure the slings and arrows of bitter words. Only this afternoon, he accused the Liberal Democrats of being a pick-and-mix party in terms of our policies. Were I a vicious man, I would point out that at least I am not pick-and-mix in my party affiliations. [Laughter.] Nevertheless, I salute the hon. Gentleman for his prudent judgment through the years, which has propelled him to a position of power. As I look forward to the Liberal Democrats sweeping to power in 2009, I assure him that his experience will be valued and that we can talk about that in confidence.
	The main issues were debated again on Report. Those that vexed us most were hearsay evidence and Diplock courts. My colleagues and I remain unpersuaded of the Under-Secretary's case in defence of maintaining the power. His strongest argument related to the Omagh victims and the potential for five cases in the pipeline to require the use of hearsay evidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) pointed out, that is not strong enough.
	Lord Carlile, who has no interest in compromising the progress towards prosecution of those responsible for the Omagh bombing or any other terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, could not have been clearer about hearsay evidence. His comments have been quoted already, but the words are so clear that it is worth repeating them. Lord Carlile stated:
	I am totally unpersuaded by the arguments for its retention . . . Section 108 could be repealed without any measurable disadvantage to the cause of public protection from terrorism. It is a provision that lies uncomfortably in the broader context of normalisation and the Good Friday Agreement.
	That is as clear as any independent arbiter could be that the requirement is not effective.
	In response to the Under-Secretary's reasonable question about who would take responsibility if hearsay evidence were not allowed and the progress of justice were thus thwarted, I would say that it is the wrong question. We will not get a prosecution on the basis of hearsay evidencethat is Lord Carlile's point. The question is counter-productivein other words, it is not neutral. The inclusion of hearsay evidence risks the far greater danger of creating martyrs, resentment and false prosecutions. I do not want to put words into Lord Carlile's mouth, but I would present those explanations to people who challenge me about why I resist the use of hearsay evidence.
	The evidence of history supports my point. If hearsay evidence were so important, it would have been used at least once in the past seven years. Furthermore, the Under-Secretary argued against new clause 1, which proposed three judges instead of one in Diplock courts, on the basis that existing procedures were effective. He cannot use that argument in that instance while simultaneously rejecting it when I say that the existing procedures have been effective without hearsay evidence. There is a contradiction in the Government's case for hearsay evidence.
	In essence, I believe that including the provisions for hearsay evidence may protect the general public against individuals by banging them up, but they do not protect the general public against injustice. That is at the heart of our concerns about the provision.
	The Under-Secretary asked us to identify with the plight of the Omagh victims. I met Michael Gallagher and his colleagues yesterday at four hours' notice. It took the Prime Minister five yearshalf a decadeto meet the representatives of the Omagh victims. He therefore needs to be careful when he accuses Opposition politicians of not taking the plight of the Omagh victims seriously.
	We had an extensive debate on the case for three-judge courts. The Liberal Democrats did not get what we wanted but we got something significant, for which I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. We now have a specific commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny and, I assume, true bipartisan debate about what should replace Diplock courts. The problem with the word bipartisan is that it implies two parties. Recent history suggests that, when two parties are involved, they are the Labour Government and Sinn Fein. I hope that, when the Under-Secretary talks about bipartisanship with regard to replacing the Diplock courts, he will ensure genuine cross-party debate, involving the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and, of course, Sinn Fein.
	The Government often make the mistake of believing that some consultation with one party means that they do not have to engage in full consultation with all parties. I will bank what the Minister has said, but we really want to see the evidence of cross-party consultation taking place before we will be comfortable.
	The Minister has also given us an explicit commitment that the measures on pre-legislative scrutiny will not share the expiry date of the existing Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. I obviously hope that the Ministers will not move onthe Minister before us today is a very likeable chap if you meet him socially, and he does a pretty good job in the House as well. It is a long and painful process to educate successive Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. Each time that process comes to a conclusion, the Minister is up to speed on the intricacies of what has gone on over the past eight years, only to be moved on. So we have to start again, the same mistakes are made by the new Ministers, and we all have to go back into a mentoring role to ensure that the Ministers have the basis of information that they need for such a specific technically and historically loaded subject.
	The Minister before us today has given us something very important. He has given us an assurance that the pre-legislative scrutiny with regard to Diplock courts will not be dependent on those in ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Office at the moment, but that the responsibility for that pre-legislative scrutiny will be carried ex officio by the Ministers there. I am grateful for that; it is an important assurance. There is no loss, cost or defeat for the Government in having made that commitment, and I look forward to the inclusion of a process of scrutiny that was lamentably absent from the on-the-runs legislation.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I believe that all Opposition Members publiclyand perhaps Labour Members privatelyrecognise that a deal was done unilaterally between the Prime Minister and Sinn Fein, and we are all trying to pick up the pieces. If I am honest, I do not blame the Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for the difficulty with the on-the-runs, but the lesson for this Bill is that, if the Government are going to make promises of cross-community, cross-party scrutiny of legislation before its publication, those promises must be kept; otherwise, the Government will reap the kind of resentment, bitterness and resistance that resulted from the on-the-runs legislation. To the credit of the Minister, he has given us assurances, in a sober and measured way, that go a little bit further than what I have heard before to reassure me that those commitments will be kept.
	I want to finish on the matter with which we began our Second Reading debate. It is the contradiction between how the Government choose to approach terrorism in Northern Ireland and terrorism on an international basis. I support the Bill in its present formwith the reservations that I have highlightedsufficiently to vote for it, should there be a Division tonight, but I find it extraordinary that there is no joined-up thinking between the Government's attempts to normalise life in Northern Ireland and what they are seeking to do to normalise life in the post-9/11 world in which we find ourselves. It is perhaps a vain hope that we can educate the Government to see those contradictions, however, because I believe that they would secretly admit that there is an utter contradiction in providing concessions to and negotiating, sometimes directly, with the paramilitary organisations in the Province, while thinking that suppressing the opportunity to terrorise is the answer to the problem in the rest of the United Kingdom and the world.
	The Minister is an educated man and he is experienced in these matters. He has steered this legislation effectively, if not always in the way that I would like. Is there nothing that he can do to educate those in the Home Office and the Foreign Office so that they understand that the lessons from Northern Ireland provide a more powerful and effective solution to undermining the motives of terrorism than any effort to suppress the opportunities to terrorise ever did?
	I think that we have ended up with a flawed but usable piece of legislation. My great regret is that the lessons of Northern Ireland and the many hundreds of hours that each of us has spent debating them are not transferred to the wider debate about terrorism. We can win the peace in Northern Ireland but there is every risk that we will lose the war on terrorism elsewhere.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: My party supports the principle as set out in the Bill. We did not divide the House on Second Reading for that reason. Nevertheless, we are disappointed that the Government have not accepted the amendments that we tabled, particularly in relation to the duration of this legislation. I outlined earlier, as did my hon. Friends, why we felt that the lifetime of the legislation should be extended beyond 200708.
	There is no doubtI think that this is accepted by the Governmentthat there is a continuing terrorist threat in Northern Irelandhence the need for this legislation. Undoubtedly, we will continue to differ over the extent to which that should influence the continued provision of special measures to deal with the terrorist threat. I understand that the Government are pursuing a policy, which is about trying to create a normal society in Northern Ireland. We want to see that normal society because it affects our constituents, the way in which they live their lives and the way in which they do their business. We have made some significant progress but we must not remove the safeguards that are necessary to ensure that society in Northern Ireland is protected. For as long as the threat remains, the need for the protection provided by this legislation remains.
	As I understand it, the Minister did not go as far as to say that there was an acceptable level of violence in Northern Ireland. He quoted figures from 1972 and everyone knows that, because of the carnage that occurred in that year, it was the worst year of what has become known as the troubles. To advance his argument, no doubt the Minister will take the worst of Northern Ireland and seek to measure that against where we are today. There is no doubt that there is a major difference, but that does not mean that we have reached a level where the need for this legislation has been removed. Where is that level?
	If by 200708 there has been further progress, and perhaps some of the other paramilitary terrorist groups have moved to decommission weapons or declare an end to their criminal and violent activity, which would be welcome, it is highly likely that there will remain organisations such as Continuity IRA, the Real IRA and perhaps some of the loyalist paramilitary organisations that have not reached the stage of declaring an end to their violence and criminality, or decommissioned their weapons. That is the reality.
	What will be the position in 2007 if the Government extend the legislation for a further 12 months and then it ceases to exist? There will then be pre-legislative scrutiny and we will consider what measures may still be required. Why go to the trouble of bringing forward new legislation when we already have adequate legislation? We want to take on board the safeguard of extending the life of the legislation and building in periodic reviews. We feel that that would have been a more prudent way to approach the issue. I regret that the Government have not taken that line. The Government need to address the issue. Do they have in their mind a level at which the legislation will be repealed or cease to exist, and yet there is a continuing terrorist threat? We have seen that those organisations that continue to engage in or prepare for acts of violence are just as capable of threatening witnesses and juries and interfering with and seeking to undermine the judicial process as the organisations that perhaps are progressing towards a more democratic and peaceful situation.
	We are still dealing, however, with the legacy of the violence of those organisations. Arrests took place just yesterday, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) mentioned, in relation to the village of Claudy. We commend the PSNI for its ongoing investigative work to find and bring to justice those responsible for the atrocity in Claudy. We note, however, that the arrests yesterday included one of Sinn Fein's Assembly Members, Francis Brolly. We are therefore still dealing with the legacy of republican involvement in violence and acts of terrorism, and that will continue to have an impact.
	Sinn Fein does not support the police, and does not recognise the legitimacy of British justice in Northern Ireland. Let me quote what was said by Martin McGuinness, the Member of Parliament for Mid-Ulster, who still does not take his seat in this House, after the arrest of Francis Brolly:
	This is a blatant example of political policing and we will be taking it up with both governments.
	I hope that the Government will resist any pressure that is brought to bear by Sinn Fein-IRA to interfere in any way with the judicial process or the police investigation into the matter. Even with the progress made and what the Minister described as the historic statement made in July by the IRA, Sinn Fein still does not support the police or accept the rule of law in Northern Ireland

Henry Bellingham: I obviously accept that wrap across the knuckles, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall now move on to the question of expiry, which is an integral part of our discussion.
	We supported the amendment tabled by the Democratic Unionist party for a very simple reason. The Government were being over-optimistic and over-ambitious and the deadline in that amendment was much more realistic. Given that this legislation is before us now, it surely makes a great deal of sense to use this opportunity to provide extra security into the future.If former on-the-run terrorists are to return to Northern Ireland, they will be coming back at exactly the time when this legislation could well expire. That is very worrying indeed. The Government tell us that they have a fully joined-up approach to dealing with terrorism, but they are introducing this Bill, which says one thing, and another Bill that says something completely different hot on the heels of this one. That is why we supported the DUP amendment, and we hope that the Government will think again, particularly when this Bill goes to another place.
	The Diplock courts are an important part of the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland. Many of us have reservations about such courts and we have had a good debate about them, although what was said by Liberal Democrat Members did not make any sense. The Minister said that he would need compelling evidence about whether the system was working and could be improvedbut, if it cannot be improved, he should stick with the status quo.
	The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Solihull (Lorely Burt) proposed a system in new clause 1 that would involve three judges rather than one. However, I believe that pressure would be brought to bear to ensure that two of the judges came from the different parts of the community, with the result that the third would have to try and hold the ring. Although the Northern Ireland judiciary is supremely professional, that would put the judges in a very tricky position, and that is why we were right to vote against the new clause.

Sammy Wilson: I wish to continue where my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) left off. In looking at the double standards in the Bill, I will try not to wander from the path, as he did, or be led astray by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). I shall resist interventions from the hon. Gentleman, because I am so easily led astray.
	The Bill illustrates the schizophrenic approach of the Government to terrorism. The Minister called the Liberal Democrats the pick and mix party, but what we have seen in the past couple of weeks from the Governmentand this Bill is part of itis a pick and mix policy on terrorism. One week, it is jelly babies, the next week it is fudge, and then we get cloven-tongued rock. Last week, the jelly babies were handed out, with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. This Bill is a fudge in its approach to terrorism, and yesterday the Prime Minister offered some rock to the victims of Omagh by saying, We will never give an amnesty to the people who carried out the Omagh bombing. We have heard similar hard words before about Provisional IRA terrorists, but unfortunately those promises have not been kept.
	The Government's approach has had an effect on Northern Ireland, because it has sent out the wrong signals to the terrorists and led to continuing terrorism in Northern Ireland. Terrorists need hope, and I believe that the Bill gives them that hope. On several occasions, the Minister mentioned the normalisation process. In the next breath, he spoke of the continuing threat of terrorism. We cannot have normalisation if we have a continuing threat. That is what the Bill is all about. In a couple of years' time, we are supposed to ease the regulations and restrictions, and change the way in which we deal with terrorism.
	As a member of Belfast city council, I saw the effect of such an approach on terrorist representatives. I remember a Conservative Minister coming to address the council and being told by one of the Sinn Fein members, You'll go home in a box, like soldiers have gone home in boxes. Of course, the Minister asked for the meeting to be stopped and the member to be put out, but his parting words were, You'll talk to us someday. It is ambivalence that gives hope to terrorists and that is what this Bill will do. It gives terrorists hope that they will be listened to. It gives them hope that they will be able to escape justice.
	The prospect that in a couple of years' time Diplock courts may go and we may revert to jury trials also gives hope to terrorists who escape justice by intimidating witnesses. Their hope is that at some time in the future they will also be able to intimidate jurors. Rather than dealing with terrorism and leading towards normalisation, as the Minister hopes, the measure will ensure that Northern Ireland is condemned to more years of terrorism and continues to need such legislation because of the continued terrorist threat.
	As other DUP Members have said, we do not want to wallow in self-pity about how bad Northern Ireland is. The accusation sometimes thrown at Unionists is that we do not want things to change. I want things to change. I want a vibrant economy in Northern Ireland. Unlike the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I believe that Northern Ireland can stand on its own two feet and that it is viable. I want to be able to give that positive message to investors from Northern Ireland or outside, but when there is a continuing terrorist threat we cannot be sure that the necessary stability will prevail. If the picture for Northern Ireland is to be positive, an unrelenting message must be sent to terrorists: we will introduce legislation that will ensure that they are crushed and dealt with and that does not offer the hope that the Bill gives them.
	As a member of the Policing Board, I know of the continued terrorist threat. We receive reports from the Chief Constable every month. Some Members have mentioned the changing nature of terrorism. We may no longer experience headline terrorist incidentsthe massive bombs in shopping centres or the shooting of policemen and Army personnelbut there is constant low-level violence. It may not make the second or even third page of the newspaper, yet it corrupts, contaminates and destroys society: the inter-faith violence organised by terrorist groups, the criminality perpetrated by terrorist groups, the intimidation of witnesses carried out by terrorist groups and the control of local areas by terrorist groups are ongoing. That is why we continue to need legislation.
	Those charged by the Government with monitoring terrorism have indicated that they see violence continuing in the long term, yet the Bill offers the prospect of normalisation within a short period. It will be music to terrorist ears that there is a weakening and a willingness to take a route that enables them to achieve their aims and escape justice.
	The amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) are essential, not because I want special legislation to have to apply to Northern Ireland for a long time, but because I believe it is necessary. The terms of the Bill are a mistake. They will give hope to those who continue to engage in terrorist acts. In a year or two, this measure, along with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill and others that have been mentionedI promised that I would not wanderwhich have been introduced as an incentive and a reward to terrorists, will not have achieved normalisation. The pick and mix, jelly baby approach that the Bill and other legislation represent will unfortunately condemn Northern Ireland to a longer period of terrorism rather than bringing normalisation.

Gregory Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, when the Government indicate that pre-legislative scrutiny should take place on that or other issues in order to test the waters and find out whether there is a consensus, having established that a consensus exists, they disregard it. We remain to be convinced on the matter of Diplock. We will see then whether there is a consensus and what the Government do in response to that.
	I draw attention to the apparent double standard. I listened to the Minister trying to explain his version of the absence of double standards with regard to section 108, and his impassioned defence of its retention on the grounds of caution. He said that the Government were wary and did not want to be perceived as anything other than strong against terrorism. Their attitude to our amendment was, on the grounds of caution and to be strong against terrorism, that the life of the legislation should be extended for a further four years. I am afraid that the Minister failed in any respect to square that circle.
	There is an undoubted need for this Bill, despite its faults and with the caveats that we have pencilled in on numerous occasions. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was in Northern Ireland on Monday and Tuesday, and its members from all parties were able to see the continuing need for this legislation. Only yesterday, the Committee went to an interface and I was able to point out to some members the tangible, brutal realities of continuing attacks on properties. They are not simply a product of 1973, 1983 or even 2003, but they are the tangible reality of 2005, and, unfortunately, may well be the tangible reality in 2007, when the Minister seems to believe or hope, as we would all hope, that we will have reached the point where this legislation will not be required.
	I wish to conclude on the issue of the level of expectation. Unfortunately, I get the distinct impression from the Minister that while he hopes that there will not be the need for this legislation to be renewed 18 months hence, that may be the case. All of us, without exception, hope that it will not need to be renewed. I would hope that we would not need this legislation tomorrow. But the issue in Northern Ireland is where we are likely to be in the foreseeable future. If the Government and the Minister believe that in 18 months the legislation will not need to be renewed, and at that point it has to be renewed, I and my hon. Friends would contend that that would do more to deflate people and to indicate that there is yet more negativity in store for them than if the legislation were renewed and was found subsequently not to be needed because the expected and hoped-for normality had emerged.

Nigel Dodds: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), and I join him and others in thanking the Minister for his contribution to this debate and other hon. Members for the way in which the debate has proceeded. It has been very useful in drawing out some important issues.
	I want briefly to put it on record that we should be grateful that we are not faced with the prospect of debating the immediate end of the emergency provisions in part 7 of the Bill. Certainly the Government's approach on other issues has been one of reckless disregard for caution and the facts on the ground, and they have proceeded prematurely to take a number of decisions on normalisation, disbandment of the RIR and other issues that I will not pursue in this debate, whereas on this Bill they have taken the view that it should continue in place for at least 18 months, with the possibility of renewal thereafter for a year. Nevertheless, we still believe that the Government should reconsider that. I have not heard any really convincing argument today or previously that would have prevented the Government from allowing the legislation to remain in place, or even taking on board the Opposition's proposal for annual renewal of the legislation, rather than arbitrarily putting in place a fixed deadline, which means that the legislation comes to an end at a fixed date without any real evidence that by that stage any of the paramilitary organisations that have been referred to in the debate will have gone out of business. Earlier in the debate, the Minister said that the paramilitary and terrorist situation had improved greatly in terms of bombings, killings and shootings in Northern Ireland, for which we are, of course, grateful.
	The Minister needs to be reminded of the most recent IMC report: the seventh report, which was issued on 19 October 2005, stated that many of the paramilitary organisations remained armed and dangerous and that many of them are involved in internal power struggles and crimes unrelated to terrorism. The IMC found that the Provisional IRA was still engaged in organised crime and violence after the announcement on 28 July 2005. It found that the LVF was still deeply involved in organised crime, especially drugs, and that it remains a deeply criminal organisation. It found that the UDA was still involved in violent and other serious crime and that it remained an active threat to the rule of law in Northern Ireland. On the UVF and the Red Hand Commando, the IMC found that the UVF was an active, violent and ruthless organisation and that it would continue to use violence where it thinks that that would be in its interests.
	The most recent IMC report, which was published in October, formed the basis for much optimism on the part of the Government. However, it serves to remind us of the continuing threat posed by all those organisations, not least the Provisional IRA. Given the nature of those organisations and their continuing activities, in our view it is premature to include an end date of 31 July 2007 in the Bill.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) have referred to the continuing violence, agitation and disturbances at the interfaces in Belfast, Londonderry and elsewhere. Those of us who represent constituencies that contain interfacesmy constituency probably contains more of them than any other in the Provinceare only too well aware of the role played by people in the provisional republican movement and other paramilitaries in continuing to keep tensions extremely high, in exacerbating violence, in stirring sectarian fears and in exploiting and manipulating situations on the ground.
	Many people on this side of the Irish sea may regard those activities as trivial by comparison with the violence over the past three decades in Northern Ireland. However, the people who live in communities that contain interfacesin my constituency, Tigers Bay, Glenbryn, the White City, Twaddell avenue and other areas that I could mentionare suffering continually, because of the ongoing violence, threats and attacks against them. Yes; such attacks are not one-sided, but their weight is directed against the Protestant and Unionist community. One has only to visit those areas to see vacant houses and dereliction because Protestant and Unionist families have been forced out as a result of the activities of republicans and paramilitary organisations from that side. We therefore believe that the legislation should be extended beyond the deadline that the Minister suggests.
	The other reason for doing so is that these organisations are deeply involved in criminality, as well as terrorist activities at a number of levels. I will not rehearse all the various examples of that criminality, but one need only look at the report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee which cited the involvement of paramilitaries in drug dealing, fuel laundering and so on. The extent of that involvement in criminality means that it will not be got rid of quickly or easily. It beggars belief that anyone could think that it will all have disappeared in 18 months' time. It will not, and that is very clear even from the standpoint of today.
	We have seen the strenuous efforts that have gone into tracking down those involved in the Northern bank robbery that took place last December. The IRA was clearly involvedthat is the settled view of the Chief Constable and authorities on both sides of the border. Imagine what will happen if, after the legislation has left the statute book, the police are able to gather evidence and bring people to court to face charges. Is the Minister seriously telling us that a trial in the case of the Northern bank robbery, for instance, could be run before a judge and jury in the normal way without any fear of intimidation or harassment of jurors? That does not square with the facts. The McCartney family are currently the subjects of intimidation, with witnesses being threatened and the family having to move out of Short Strand because of intimidation and threats. Last week, a friend of the family said that they had been threatened by the Provisional IRA. At some point in the future, charges may be brought against individuals for their involvement in that crime or for covering it up. Is the Minister seriously telling us if that happens after July 2007 such a case could be run in a normal court with a judge and jury? Intimidation is already taking place and threats are being issued. The Minister suggests that that would not happen in the context of a jury trial, but of course it would. That is why we find it hard to understand why he and the Government are so set on a cut-off date that has no basis in logic or fact and is wildly optimistic.
	The Minister tells us that we should be reassured by the fact that if we reach that point in time and it is felt that the legislation is still necessary, the Government would have no hesitation in coming to the House to propose that it should continue. He would presumably base that on the recommendation of the Chief Constable, primarily, and on other security advice. Having listened to what the Minister said about that, I am not reassured by one iota. Our belief in the Government's willingness to take on board the Chief Constable's security advice was gravely undermined over the summer by the atrocious behaviour of the Secretary of State, who was prepared to re-imprison one Sean Kelly on the basis of the Chief Constable's recommendation that he was involved in terrorism and acts of violence, and yet released him six weeks later, against the Chief Constable's explicit advice, because Sinn Fein was demanding it as the price of its statement the very next day.
	What confidence does it give the people whom I represent and the people of Northern Ireland generally if the Under-Secretary claims that he will take police advice and listen to the Chief Constable, when evidence from the summer shows a clear decision by the Government to reject the Chief Constable's advice when it came to a choice between protecting the people in my constituency and appeasing Sinn Fein? For those hon. Members who do not know, Sean Kelly is a mass murderera child killer who murdered nine people on the Shankill road in 1992.
	Apart from the atrocious Bill to allow an amnesty for IRA terrorists, one reason for the grave lack of confidence in the Unionist community is the feeling that everything is done to make concessions to the Sinn Fein-IRA movement and that normal processes are put to one side. That is clearly shown by the case of Sean Kelly and one of the reasons why we can take no assurance from the Under-Secretary's comments today.
	I conclude by reinforcing the point that has already been made about the contradictions in the Government's approach. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) spoke about the difference between the approach to terrorism in Northern Ireland and that to terrorism internationally. Whatever the merits of that argument, there has been a different approach to different terrorists even within Northern Ireland. Some terrorist organisations and groups are regarded as the good terrorists and others are regarded as the bad terrorists. Ministers hailed and praised those who signed up to the Belfast agreement as unsung heroes of the peace process, only for them to be rearrested and flung back into jail a couple of month later for being up to their necks in violence and all sorts of terrorist activities. The Government have applied a clear double standard to terrorism even within Northern Ireland.
	However, as several hon. Members have pointed out, the most glaring contradiction in the Government's approach is shown by their caution towards the Bill and insistence on retaining the provisions for 18 months because they are not convinced that the time is right to remove them, and their introduction last week of the most appalling Bill that has been presented to the House in recent years. The latter measure will give an amnesty to IRA terrorists and others. The Government also want to reinstate allowances and money for Sinn Fein-IRA and other groups.

William McCrea: Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. There can be no justification for seeing someone now as a good terrorist. There are those who try to put members of Sinn Fein-IRA into that category, as well as other evil terrorists. Terrorism is an evil upon society and must be condemned.
	The Minister must be careful in over-emphasising the statement from the Provisional IRA. We have heard and lived with such statements. New dawns have been heralded, and they can be over-played. I acknowledge that there was a major act of decommissioning. However, I do not believe that all of the terrorist weapons of the Provisional IRA have been decommissioned. There are two different situations. No Member of this place could put their hand on their heart and say that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the Provisional IRA's weapons have been decommissioned. The Minister should be careful not to over-play the statement that has been made. We have heard the same statement for years.
	Do not expect any member of the Democratic Unionist party to praise any statement emanating from Sinn Fein-IRA because they have stopped murdering people or because they say that they have stopped killing people. They should never have started in the first place. We need to be careful. The Bill is dealing with ongoing terrorism. There is an acknowledgement that it is necessary to continue the legislation until 2008, and the Government will not to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) to extend that period to 2012. The Minister, however, is not accepting the reality. The IRA is still a well oiled paramilitary organisation, which is up to the neck in criminal activity. Let us remember that such criminal activity, whether oil smuggling along the border or bank robberies, involves the use and threat of the gun, and it is still going on. Let us not give the impression that the Provisional IRA has somehow never shown the gun since the day that that statement was made by P. O'Neill, because it is not true. It is far from the truth, and it is not the reality.
	The explanatory notes mention the taking down of border posts. Along the border, there are many isolated unionist families who are very concerned and worried that they have been left at the mercy of the Provisional IRA and of those who intimidate them. Let us remember that there was a policy of genocide along the border. In the Castlederg area of the Mid-Ulster constituency, there has certainly been a policy of genocide, whereby the only sons of Protestant farming families have been killed, which has moved the border back in reality because there is no son to carry on such farms. When farms come up for sale, the republicans are able to move into more territory, which was their intention. There is therefore a feeling of constant threat, so we need a continuation of the Bill beyond the date suggested by the Minister.
	Criminality is engrained in republicanism. Republicans have been engaging in it for years, and it seems that in some family circles it has been going on for centuries. It is endemic within the republican community, which has not given it up. I assure the Minister that the police will find it very difficult to get republicans to move away from that criminality.
	My final appeal to the Minister is to think carefully about a closure date for this legislation. When there is peace, true stability and true reconciliation in Northern Ireland, with no more threat of violence from terrorist groups, we will not need this legislation. We long for that day, and we hope that it will be soon, but I believe that the Minister's thinking is premature.

Mark Williams: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House the important matter of television reception in Wales.
	There is no doubt that broadcasting is going through a revolution that is allowing more people to access more information and offering more choices. Arguably the most important of all is the digital revolution in radio and television that is already well under way. Wales will be one of the first to switch off its analogue transmitters in 2009, and by 2012 the UK as a whole will be one of Europe's leading modern broadcasting nations.
	This debate, however, is not about the benefits of digitalisation, but about how those benefits can be accessed by all. The success of any nation calling itself modern can be measured only by how it can help those in society who need assistance. More than 30 years ago, the Government commissioned a report into broadcasting coverage in the UK. The Crawford report's findings in 1974 still resonate, 30 years on. It stated that
	the numbers of people unable to receive public service broadcasting are by no means negligible.
	Today, 1.5 per cent of the UK population, or just under a million people, do not have television reception of acceptable quality, or even any reception at all. In Wales, that amounts to some 36,000 households. We must be clear about the matter: if the topography of Wales and its hilly landscapes prevent 36,000 households from getting TV reception, those same conditions also prevent 36,000 people from getting the mobile phone, radio or broadband signals on which so many of us rely to stay in touch with each other and the world around us. That is particularly important, given the recent general election and the forthcoming National Assembly elections. The electoral process involves people accessing information, and more people depend on television to follow politics than on any other medium. There is a public service obligation, but many people are unable to access the information they need.
	My question to the Minister is: why are we not using the unique opportunity of digital switchover to secure universal coverage, in Wales and further afield? The dispiriting fact so far is that the expectation of digitalisation is merely to achieve parity of cover with analogue.
	Digital switchover has opened up a debate that successive Governments have ignored for over 30 yearshow we can ensure that everyone in the country gets adequate television reception. The Minister will not need reminding of the Labour manifesto commitment to
	achieve digital switchover between 2008 and 2012, ensuring universal access to high-quality
	and this debate is concerned with the quality of transmission
	free-to-view and subscription digital TV.
	Universal access is non-negotiable and the Government have an obligation to honour their manifesto commitment. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what targets he suggests setting to tackle the problem of the outstanding 1.5 per cent. or 36,000 people in Wales who do not get adequate television receptionor any reception at all.
	There is considerable unease. One constituent of mine, a Mr. Loftus of Taliesin in the north of Ceredigion, is currently unable to access Freeview, and asks whether his local transmitter will be upgraded in time for analogue switch-off in 2009. Another constituent, Mr. Shaftoe is concerned at the lack of public information. The 2009 date is engraved on our minds, but what is the immediate timetable? The Minister will not need reminding that switchover is only four years away.

Roger Williams: Like my hon. Friend, I represent a constituency in which people have difficulty with television reception, and some communities have banded together to enhance the signal. However, when some people take advantage of satellite reception, the community spirit breaks down because they no longer want to be involved. It is therefore the poorest people in the community who suffer, because they cannot afford satellite equipment.

Mark Williams: I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point. I shall return to the issue of low income and some of the financial implications later.
	If nothing has yet been done about TV reception, it has nothing to do with technology; it may be more to do with a lack of will. Over and above anything else, I seek from the Minister today a firm commitment that something will be done to remedy the inadequacies of the past three decades. If technology is not the problem, perhaps the Minister will allow me to share my thoughtsperhaps na-ve onesabout how the difficulties could be tackled.
	Ofcom's report published in August 2004, Vulnerable Consumers in SwitchoverWho Are They And Where Do They Live?, recognised that people living in low population density areas were less likely to receive TV reception and earmarked them as vulnerable groups. That may address the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). Will the Government take Ofcom's recommendations on board and broaden the eligibility criteria, to ensure that people living in rural areas who might just miss the criteria for low income, and the elderly and disabled, have the chance to access that new technology, perhaps involving some form of modulation in proportion to their income?
	I applaud the support scheme that the Government have announced, as far as it goes, and its provision for helping with installation of equipment and for follow-up support for people with significant disabilities, and people aged 75 years and olderan important issue that relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon about the Welsh language. In a written answer of 22 November to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), the Minister mentioned such a support scheme. When will the details be forthcoming? Definite details would reassure many people and meet many of the anxieties they are experiencing.
	Through what mechanisms do the Government envisage support being made available to the elderly and disabled, and those on low incomes? Will they make use of existing structures to assess those in need and to dispense help? There is already a network of Ofcom engineersalbeit not manywho travel the length and breadth of Wales investigating interference problems with TV reception. It would take only a slight broadening of the remit of Ofcom's current powers to enable its expert engineers to hold the deciding vote over whether a satellite was the only way to proceed in a reception blackspot. Ofcom would of course require additional funding to meet that extra function. In some ways, its engineers are already performing that duty, as the interference problems with which they have to deal are due to topography. Armed with an official Ofcom certificate, the individual could take a claim to the local authority and access practical financial aid to upgrade the satellite.
	We are still in the dark about how and when the Government will dispense the help they have promised to the elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes, but it is obviously not too late to make plans to help those who are media poor. We know that the BBC will have to contribute 400 million to aid the most vulnerable to make the leap to digital, but what estimates has the Department for Culture, Media and Sport made of how much it would cost to solve the problem faced by the 36,000 households I mentioned1.5 million UK wide? Our estimates, using Government figures, suggest that it would cost the DCMS between 720,000 and 7 million to get those 36,000 households in Wales connected once and for all.
	I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. He has shown much interest in the matter in the past. He met a delegation that included my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), the hon. Member for Caernarfon and me and was receptive to our message. Like others, I feel strongly that small percentages should not disguise the fact that for many people, particularly those clustered in rural areas, things that the rest of us take for granted are not readily available. It is on their behalf that I ask the Minister to respond positively.

Lembit �pik: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) on securing the debate. I also thank the Minister for allowing me to make a short contribution.
	The crucial point for a place such as Montgomeryshire, which neighbours Ceredigion, is that although we may be living in the sticks, we should not be rubbing sticks together when it comes to technology. Our idea of a good night in is not S-an using the old spinning mill, me chopping wood in the back yard, and talking about the good old days. Sometimes we would actually like to watch the television. Television is not only for entertainment, because it increasingly provides a range of other important facilities without which one is effectively excluded from important cultural and information-based elements of modern life.
	People from the beautiful town of Machynlleth have an extraordinary ability to win pub quizzes. When I asked them why they did so well, they said, Well, it's basically because the television reception is so poor that we've got nothing else to do than read. One could argue that that is a benefit, but it also means that they are excluded from certain media outlets, as my hon. Friend said. On a practical point, they are reduced to receiving the programming that happens to make its way into the valley. For example, they might not be able to receive Welsh regional television coverage and instead have to depend on the midlands' programmes. Such a situation necessarily causes a serious problem in Wales.
	I would like to watch the programmes that it is possible to watch in the midlands and larger towns. I would like to watch S-an Lloyd doing the excellent weather forecasts on ITV or I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!I declare an interest of a most personal nature. However, thanks to the hills, every time I watch her weather forecasts, they are full of snow. When analogue is switched off, it is likely that a proportion of my constituents will lose access to some of those programmes completely.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, modern technology can solve all those problems, but we need initiative from the Government. Television is about more than entertainmentit is about information. It is about not only soap operas, but ensuring that parts of Wales are not unclassified roads compared with the information super-highway, which dominates much of modern business and culture.
	The Minister has been receptive to our points and positive about the problems that have been highlighted. Nevertheless, I hope that he can give us some specifics about what the Government can do to resolve the situation. We are asking not for tomorrow's world, but simply that Wales is not left out. As things stand, however, a proportion of residents in Wales, through no fault of their own, will continue to regard the television reception problem as the weakest link.

James Purnell: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) on securing this debate, and on the cogent way in which he made his case? I welcome the support from everyone who spoke in our debate for the commitment to switchover, which was universally welcomed. Rather than express opposition to the concept itself, Members were concerned that digital access will not extend far enough. The fact that Wales is one of the first two regions to go down that route was welcomed. Wales leads the world in the amount of digital TV that it receives, as 70 per cent. of households have digital TV setsno other nation has such a high a percentage. There is therefore a genuine opportunity for Wales and the border region, when they go first in 2008, to secure leading-edge advantages for the local economy. I encourage hon. Members to work with the regional development agency, local authorities and the Welsh Assembly to make sure that Wales capitalises on that economic opportunity.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the digital switchover in September this year. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, that announcement confirmed that HTV Wales would be switched off in 2009. We decided that Wales should be one of the first to switch over, because 43 per cent. of homes in Walesnearly double the national average of 25 per cent.cannot gain access to digital terrestrial television. We receive hundreds of letters every month from the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House complaining about the fact that they cannot gain access to digital terrestrial television. Without the digital switchover we could not respond to those concerns, because we would be unable to extend digital coverage.
	Of course, many people prefer to receive their digital TV via satellite, cable or, in some areas, via broadband. In Wales, many viewers have already opted for satellite services. Some have done so specifically to resolve longstanding reception difficulties, including the lack of availability of Channel 4 on analogue in Wales, and to receive new digital services. For many other people, however, digital TV through an aerial is still the cheapest and most convenient option, which is why we are committed to extending the service.
	Extending digital terrestrial in Wales is particularly challenging. Terrestrial reception requires a line of sight to a transmitter, but the hills and valleys in much of Wales make that difficult to achieve with ground-based transmitters. The solution adopted during the 1960s and 1970s was to build a network of relay transmitters to boost coverage, and there are more than 200 relay transmitters in Walesa far higher number than in any other TV region. It would be fantastic to extend digital TV coverage without switching off analogue, but we are unable to do so. Only by removing analogue from the equation can we enable the digital network to be replanned and allow digital transmissions to use frequencies that are cleared internationally for high-powered use. That will be a huge amount of work. Removing analogue will create space for the network of 1,154 transmitters, including those small relay stations, to be upgraded.
	This means that at switchover the same proportion of homes as can currently receive analogue servicesthat is, 98.5 per cent. of homeswill be able to receive channels on the three public service multiplexes. We have been clear that that is our commitment to universal coverage ever since Chris Smith laid down those criteria when he announced the Government's commitment in principle to digital switchover.
	We recognise that for the 1.5 per cent. of homes that have no access to services, the figure of 98.5 per cent. offers no comfort. Even if it is a small number of households relative to the whole country, it is still extremely frustrating for people who do not have reception. Being able to play pub quizzes may be a compensating advantage, but it does not make up for being unable to receive television in Machynlleth or anywhere else.
	In Wales digital terrestrial coverage will increase from around 57 per cent. to match current analogue coverage, which in Wales will be 97.4 per cent. It will be slightly lower than in the rest of the country because that is the current percentage. I recognise the point that the hon. Member for Ceredigion makes. We are seized of the need to see what can be done to help the remaining 1.5 per cent. Clearly, a number of them can currently receive satellite television, but we are working with Ofcom to conduct further research to find other ways of extending digital TV to those households.
	Many homes are considering installing a taller or higher spec aerial or booster. Self-help schemes have sprung up around much of the country, allowing small communities to install their own community relays at their own expense to extend analogue TV into their locations. However, over recent months some of those schemes have started to fold as more and more people tip over into getting satellite TV. That can make self-help schemes unsustainable. Nevertheless, we will continue to work with Ofcom to see what can be done through self-help schemes and other technological solutions to expand coverage to that 1.5 per cent. We are confident that the eventual coverage will be even higher than the current rate for analogue television.
	The hon. Gentleman asked why we are not extending the digital terrestrial transmitter network even further. It is a matter of cost effectiveness. We have already been criticised for our plans to extend digital terrestrial coverage to the 98.5 per cent. There were representations to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recently, to the effect that instead of expanding digital terrestrial, we should rely on satellite for the last 10 or 20 per cent. The hon. Gentleman would probably agree that that would be of little comfort to his constituents, particularly those who are unable to receive satellite television because of proximate hills or buildings. Because of that concern, we have committed to go to 98.5 per cent., but to go further would, we believeand Ofcom shares that beliefmean investing in transmission facilities which could not be justified on cost-effective grounds. That is why we are exploring other solutions such as satellite and self-help schemes, and even piloting the use of electricity wires to distribute television.
	On the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), we discussed that during the session on the issue. Of course it is frustrating for people who want to access Welsh services if they can get only English-language services. It is a difficult issue to resolve, as the mountains in the area shield those households from the Welsh transmitters. The Welsh services are available on satellite, which, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion rightly says, can already be accessed free from Sky, and the BBC and ITV are planning a freesat service, which we hope will help.
	We will continue to look into the matter, and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to see whether there have been any new developments. That is the answer that I can give him with regard to the 1.5 per cent.the important minority of people who cannot get access to analogue television. We are confident that we will be able to provide access to more people. I cannot guarantee that we will be able to provide digital terrestrial access to everybody, but we are working with Ofcom and we will be happy to continue to work with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on seeing what we can do to provide further coverage.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Tony Cunningham.]